Sanderson's Adelaide turnaround one of the stories of the year

Seems like so long ago. The Crows are now an average side, and Sando has been sacked. They did have such an easy draw that year though.

Agree with all of that. Except that I genuinely believe Sydney have been the second best team in the league this season. I think it would have taken a string of bad luck for them not to be playing on Saturday.

As I said below strummer next year for the suns is very different to this year for the suns, another preseason, some good trades for Toy and Caddy and the likes of Omeara coming in and they will win 6 or 7. It is also a bit hard to say given Freo are trying to land a big fish and who knows where Tippett will be or whether Goddard gets to Essendon but I can't see Freo having too much trouble with any of them. To make it more like this year if we said GWS in Sydeny rather than GCS in GC I am sure you and almost any other person would take the Giants

As I said Baymant there was no reason that any side should have played GWS & the Suns twice this year let alone one already playing Port Adelaide twice. And did you miss North's easy draw due to your anti Victorian bias, just like a South Australian not paying attention to anything outside their state, must be that poor media coverage.

Hmmm OK. Lets say you are the Freo coach and you were offered one of two choices next year; would you rather 1. Play Brisbane in Perth or 2. Play Gold Coast in Gold Coast What about say Essendon in Perth or GC in GC. I personally would take Brisbane, but second one might be a little tougher (but at least not as easy as you think in my opinion).

Full of what, Macca? Knowledge, wisdom, experience, humour? North got an easy draw, too? I missed that Macca, largely because I don't care. Largely because some team is going to get an 'easy' draw - even if only for a season or two in the case of the Suns and GWS. I'm looking forward to the day when people are complaining that some team had a leg up because they got to play Collingwood and Carlton twice. As for Pavlich I know he's a good player - I used to watch his dad play - and I was being a little mischievous - deliberately.....and because I can. As for his lack of media recognition in Victoria I appreciate that also - and it tells you all you need to know about the Victorian media. And by a flow on effect, most of the Victorian fans. As for home ground advantages, again, I don't care. If we must have an expanded competition (gee, I almost said VFL then) it is a given that interstate teams will play home games interstate. Just like Victorian teams play nearly every week at the MCG and Etihad (or whatever the bloody thing's called). Still smiling about being called 'full of it' by a Carlton man. Now that is funny.

Yep, none of them are as big as advantage as 7 games against the bottom 4 sides though. And the WA sides biggest disadvantage probably comes in terms of players longevity, I am sure I have seen some study showing it cuts more than a season off a career.

I wouldn't be unhappy with that, although with another pre-season some good trades and the likes of Omeara coming into the team they will be much better next year, probably win 6 or 7.

Great. So in summary, you believe all three are a disadvantage, whether it be a marginal (travel) or material disadvantage (the Cattery), to some teams. Your other comments are noted and make sense, but I'm just collecting thoughts on whether the three have any disadvantages whatsoever to some teams in the minor round and in the Grand Final (in the Swans case).

Bayman - There was absolutely no reason for any side to play both expansion teams twice this year or any other year, especially not a side that was already going to be playing another struggler in Port Adelaide twice. I don't think we will have the same issue next year, the aFL will have learnt the lesson.

and Macca - I hope your mob play the Suns - twice!

Whatever! - the best two teams will play in the Grand Final.

Macca, We're both like a dog with a bone........ Here's the thing, with two new teams, and eighteen teams in total, the draw is going to be skewed. It is a given but I don't have a problem with it because it can never be any different. Next year it will be two more teams getting the so-called advantage. Are we still going to be having this argument then. And the year after, and the year after that. It's a pointless exercise because it is not going to change. As for the random luck aspect I concede it may not be the case. I don't care, that's my point. In the SANFL, for instance, it used to be the case that with ten teams in the old days every team played each other twice and four teams were played three times. Those additional four games were decided by the team's ladder position the year before. So a bottom side played three games against another bottom side and one game against a top side. The top sides played three against fellow top finishers and one against a bottom side. It was a blatant, and stated, handicap system designed to give the bottom sides a leg up for the coming season. I grew up with this system so I consequently don't give a toss about the AFL draw. I know it can never be fair but it doesn't bother me - because it can NEVER be fair! Adelaide got what they got, and as Cameron said, were good enough to take advantage. My objection, which you two have missed completely, apparently, is the assertion that somehow if Adelaide had not got GWS and GC they would have got Hawthorn and Sydney, or Collingwood, and the season's result may have been different for the Crows. And, no, I could not begin to tell you how little I care that if Geelong had got that extra game they might have finished fourth and not been beaten by Freo. Largely because, in reality, it still would have made no difference to where the Crows finished. It is far more likely that Adelaide would have got lesser teams than those you seem to prefer - and they still probably would have won them both - but even one would probably have been enough. The fact is that the logic does not really support your argument except in the extremely unlikely case of Adelaide getting two of the other top four teams twice. With eighteen teams in total, the odds are against it and your case, and Cameron's, only works if that unlikely scenario played out (always presuming Adelaide lost both).

Bayman - As I said "The fact is there is a massive increase in the possibility they would of lost both those games had they played ANYONE else other than the Suns & GWS." and "had one of the extra Suns or GWS games gone to Geelong or West Coast they miss the top 4 just by losing 1 extra game." Percentage would of become important had they lost those extra games. Even if you are correct and they finished 4th instead of 2nd, that get's them a trip to Melbourne to play the Hawks in the first week then hosting West Coast in Adelaide the second which is much tougher than a swans home game followed by another home game against Freo. And as for Richmond or Carlton you would be happy to play those sides that turned up to play the Suns but not the sides that turned up to play Collingwood or the Hawks, you might of won but the chance you didn't is much greater.

Macca, If perspective is necessary I suggest you get some. The Crows did play Freo and Geelong twice. You criticise my comment for the 'what if' nature of it - then counter with a massive 'what if' yourself. You suggest if the Crows had played Hawthorn, Collingwood or Sydney twice they would have lost. That's three teams only out of the remaining fourteen. It is far more likely they would not have played those teams twice so the draw, in effect, made very little difference. In the end Adelaide's final position was based on premiership points, not percentage. They could have won the extra two games by a single point and still finished second. I'm sorry the Crows didn't play Hawthorn and Collingwood twice, just for you and Cameron, but, trust me, I'd have been more than happy to play Richmond and Carlton twice - and the end result would have been the same. Or perhaps you'd prefer Melbourne and the Bulldogs?

Cameron, If you don't think there is state parochialism in the AFL you are kidding yourself. The point is I haven't seen much comment from Queenslanders, Sydneysiders or Sangropers bitching about Adelaide's draw - just Victorians. It gives an impression that the interstate teams are somehow not entitled to compete in finals and interrupt the natural flow. Your specific assertion I've answered elsewhere but I'll happily go again. I concede Adelaide was fortunate to play the expansion teams twice. It probably guaranteed wins in four games but that's only two more than every other team should have had. As I said, I'll concede that fact. If you concede that had Adelaide not played the Suns and GWS twice they might well have played Richmond and Carlton (for you and Macca's benefit) and still won both games. Ergo, except in a couple of very specific cases the f***ing draw made no difference. Only if the Crows played Hawthorn, Sydney, Collingwood and, maybe, West Coast twice could we assume two possible losses (and we did beat Sydney and West Coast during the season). Other than that it is conceivable, even likely, that the Crows would have won at least one of those two extra games. You and Macca's clear assumption is that Adelaide would have lost both games against different opposition that GWS and the Suns. My argument is that, on the season just played, that would be highly unlikely. Therefore the 'soft draw' is an irrelevance and made no real difference. Worst case scenario is that I'll concede they might have finished third not second. But, in any case, they may well have finished in your phantom draw exactly where they finished with the real draw. If there's a farce here it's the continual assertion that Adelaide only finished where they did because of the two new teams. You may be right - but it's not the given that you and Macca seem to think it is. ........and yes, I do love seeing Victorian teams beaten as a rule.....sue me!

Strummer - There is no doubt the cattery is an advantage to Geelong, Tassie trips are still a bit up in the air as Hawthorn doesn't have a great record there but I have no doubt it will become an advantage over time. The WA sides travel is a disadvantage but they become so experienced in it the disadvantage becomes diminished. On the Swans not playing at the MCG is a disavantage for finals but given their record their probably helps during the year, I would much prefer the blues to play the Swans at the MCG than Etihad.

So it was just random luck? The aFL make no bones about corrupting the draw to maximise the gate and TV revenue, having 2 Adelaide teams missing finals for consecutive years isn't good for either. Similarly North got an easy run after just missing finals for a few years, ensuring they would be competitive again made the race for the 8 go deeper into the season.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, nothing more. With Swans and say Adelaide having to play at the Cattery every year, but not say Carlton or Essendon, is this a factor that should be considered for determining if a team has a 'soft draw'? Same goes for the Tassie games whereby Collingwood will likely never play there? If Freo travels across Australia say 10 times a year and North Melb say 4, should this be considered when determining 'soft/hard draws' Finally, with Swans playing just 1 game at MCG, and the Grand Final being played on Hawthorn's home ground, does this mean Hawthorn has a 'soft draw' for the finals? Again, just interested in genuine opinions here in the context of the current debate.

Bayman - "They still would have finished top four in just about every scenario" Except if they played Hawthorn, Collingwood or Sydney or if any of the mid tier teams like Freo, North, Geelong even Richmond or Carlton beat them in the second game. The fact is there is a massive increase in the possibility they would of lost both those games had they played anyone else other than the Suns & GWS. On top of that had one of the extra Suns or GWS games gone to Geelong or West Coast they miss the top 4 just by losing 1 extra game. Again not trying to say Adelaide weren't worthy finalists but perspective is necessary.